Insuranceinsurance

One thing I do agree with in this so called third world country is when you insure a car, that's exactly what you get. The whole cars insured. IE I could lend my car to a friend, as I paid the insurance the car holds the insurance NOT the indivdual so as I see it there's not much chance of any scumbags driving around without cover.
PS just to annoy you more road tax is £25 per year lol.

This is great too. Imagine lending your vehicle to someone who does not have any insurance themselves and having them total your vehicle. That would be very devastating especially if you had paid your insurance like you were supposed to. Insurance is quite expensive here in the US but it is well worth it if an accident occurs.

My insurance covers me to drive other vehicles, which is quite common in the UK. So we can all drive each other's vehicles legally too.

Click to expand...

Yes but you are only covered third party to drive my car for example.
In Europe i drive my dad's car or uncle i am covered full comprehensive.
Car is insured rather then driver and i find that much better.
My dad can't drive my car if i don't put him on my policy.

Even if you have insurance on your own car and that policy covers you to drive other cars, you're stuffed if you drive another car that doesn't have a policy i.e. you get stopped driving a car with no policy, the car goes to the compound, you walk (or get a taxi) and you'll get a fine & penalty points. You might get away with it if the owner told you it was insured and confesses to having told you that, but then the owner would be stuffed instead.

@jimjams Doesnt matter whether the owner told you their car was insured or not. Thats no defence. Its down to the driver of the vehicle to ensure they are driving it legally at the time they are stopped or caught breaching contreventions.

Some insurance companies will allow you to drive other vehicles that are not insured but they are generally specialist ones. Main stream companies require it to be insured beforehand and as jimjam says above. Will only be 3rd party cover.

I would have thought that it was a defence, because there are going to be circumstances where an owner cannot produce the documents to prove the car is insured.

For example, suppose I am on a touring caravan site (god forbid, but it might happen) and I bump into an old friend who is also on the same site. The camp does not have wifi, and my pet dog gets injured and needs to be rushed to a nearby vet. My car won't start, the old friend says he is too tired to drive, and suggests I borrow his car. He assures me it is insured. I set off in it, get stopped by plod, only to discover the insurance had lapsed a few days previously.

I have done everything reasonable to be compliant with the law (AFAIK, it's not expected that people drive around in the UK with insurance documents for their car)

This is great too. Imagine lending your vehicle to someone who does not have any insurance themselves and having them total your vehicle. That would be very devastating especially if you had paid your insurance like you were supposed to. Insurance is quite expensive here in the US but it is well worth it if an accident occurs.

Click to expand...

I'm based in the UK and unsure of your rules but am always amazed when watching one of my favs. Judge Judy ( should be your next president lol ) how many people say they don't have any car insurance. Is or was it the case it wasn't a legal requirement ? In the UK you MUST have insurance to drive on the roads. Perhaps things have changed recently ?
If your an old boy like me with a good driving history I think insurance is very cheap, I pay under $1 a day which is good value especially for London.

I'm based in the UK and unsure of your rules but am always amazed when watching one of my favs. Judge Judy ( should be your next president lol ) how many people say they don't have any car insurance. Is or was it the case it wasn't a legal requirement ? In the UK you MUST have insurance to drive on the roads. Perhaps things have changed recently ?
If your an old boy like me with a good driving history I think insurance is very cheap, I pay under $1 a day which is good value especially for London.

Click to expand...

I've watched Judge Judy and seen the same or similar cases. I think the law over there is the same here, but the rulings of Judge Judy are Civil, not Criminal, so she cannot give any "Criminal" judgement if someone admits to driving without insurance.

Even in the UK, there are still a significant number of people who drive without insurance.

This particular touring caravan site is a few hundred yards from Cape Wrath in Scotland, the dog hasn't really been injured and, being a Honda, my car will start of course. But I use the story to borrow the friend's VW Golf, drive it to the cliff edge, and push it over (having made sure the dog is out as well).

@jimjams The law is very clear on it. Its the drivers responsibility to ensure the car is on the road legally. I could insure your car under my policy with you being the owner. The owner of any vehicle is completely irrelevant. For example @ArcticFire has a company car, if he has bald tyres, its him that will get prosecuted not the owner. Its the drivers responsibility

TV is so inaccurate when it shows these police and court programs. There is a reason why lawyers spend years training and why police are constantly training too. People say police are stupid but they have to know the law like lawyers plus more and being human, everyone is allowed to get things wrong occassionally. Laws in america are totally different to laws here and tv dumbs the complexity of the law down for its viewers.

If you had to drive a car not insured in a medical life saving emergency then that would be one thing. If you drove the same car cause your mate was too drunk then thats not acceptable to avoid prosecution. If yr mate however has insurance which allows anyone to drive it third party then you are fine too insurance wise

This particular touring caravan site is a few hundred yards from Cape Wrath in Scotland, the dog hasn't really been injured and, being a Honda, my car will start of course. But I use the story to borrow the friend's VW Golf, drive it to the cliff edge, and push it over (having made sure the dog is out as well).

@jimjams The law is very clear on it. Its the drivers responsibility to ensure the car is on the road legally. I could insure your car under my policy with you being the owner. The owner of any vehicle is completely irrelevant. For example @ArcticFire has a company car, if he has bald tyres, its him that will get prosecuted not the owner. Its the drivers responsibility

TV is so inaccurate when it shows these police and court programs. There is a reason why lawyers spend years training and why police are constantly training too. People say police are stupid but they have to know the law like lawyers plus more and being human, everyone is allowed to get things wrong occassionally. Laws in america are totally different to laws here and tv dumbs the complexity of the law down for its viewers.

If you had to drive a car not insured in a medical life saving emergency then that would be one thing. If you drove the same car cause your mate was too drunk then thats not acceptable to avoid prosecution. If yr mate however has insurance which allows anyone to drive it third party then you are fine too

Click to expand...

Having a bald tyre on a borrowed car is something that can be checked before getting into the driver's seat, so you are being somewhat insincere by using that as a relevant example.

In the case of there being an insurance policy on a car, in circumstances where I am unable to obtain paper evidence that there is a policy on the car, and where it is somewhat urgent that a car is needed (not necessarily life-and-death, but where a person or animal is in distress), then I cannot be accused of breaking the law. Breaking the law involves intent, or lack of foresight, or bith. So where I do not have intent, and where I have used foresight, I am not liable.

You can be reckless through breaking the law. Lack of knowledge is not an excuse. At the end of the day...the law is clear no matter how pedantic anyone wants to be over it. It is the drivers responsibility to ensure the car is on the road legally. If it is not, you are liable. Simple as that. Ignorance is not an excuse in court.